Collection of Found Objects

Online anonymity is a hotly debated topic. Everyone wants their privacy, but many do not consider the cost of it, nor do they consider what privacy actually means and if it is attainable. In her article “Online Anonymity Protects Marginalized Groups” danah boyd, technology and social media scholar, makes an important point that power dynamics are at work in our online presence just as they are in our physical lives. She writes that online anonymity is an important tool for vulnerable individuals to protect themselves against harm from others. Certainly, the Internet can be a ruthless place, where people seem to say whatever they want with impunity under the protection of free speech. Richard Bird, freelance writer and traveler, writes about this very problem in his article “Online Anonymity Increases Incivility”. He writes “the greater threat to civility and civil behaviors is most certainly the cloak and veil that technology now provides to each and every one of us in our dealings with each other”(par 2). Online anonymity creates a problem of incivility, which often crosses boundaries into hate speech, stalking, and violence. Protecting anonymity does more harm to vulnerable individuals than good by actually creating the unsafe spaces they desire to be protected from.

“Sticks and stones” goes the nursery rhyme, teaching us at an early age that “words will never hurt”. Lisa Feldman Barrett, professor of psychology at Northwestern University, tells us in “When Is Speech Violence” that we have been wrong all along. Abusive language has physical, lasting effects on our brains that cause physical illness and shorten our lives. She says the scientific findings “provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable […] in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive” (par 9). And Bird reminds us of something we are all well aware of; online anonymity “manifests in the tendency for human beings to say things […] that they would never, ever say in the presence of a real live human being”(par 5). I see this scenario of anonymity and abusive speech play out in day-to-day life on the streets of Chicago. While commuting by bicycle, I hear how angry drivers curse at others from the relative privacy of their cars, and I also hear how pedestrians and cyclists courteously engage each other face-to-face. The pattern is, again and again, anonymity creates a space where individuals can let their hate freely flow, whether online or in our day-to-day lives.

Doesn’t everyone have a right to privacy? In her article, boyd lists poll results that detail exactly what individuals seek to escape through anonymity: stalking, harassment, abusive language and death threats. The people who are primarily affected are “abuse survivors, activists, LGBT people, women, and young people” (par 3). These individuals are not making complaints that someone said something offensive online, they are affected by actual crimes of assault that can be brought forward as charges in our legal system. And the fact that these marginalized groups feel that online anonymity could protect them proves that the source of the crime is originating online. And the additional fact that these groups feel that only online anonymity can protect them shows that there is something much more broken in our system than anonymous trolls on comment forums. The argument against anonymity protecting an individual is that “doxxing” exists. When a person is doxxed, all of their personal information is publicly shared. These are details beyond just a person’s name but include home addresses and phone numbers for the individual and related loved-ones. The result is that, usually, all listed persons become victims of real-life stalking, threats of violence, and actual violence. There is no realistic protection against doxxing, because absolute anonymity online only exists for the savviest (and often malicious) Internet users. The same behavior we see with online stalking is mirrored in real-life stalking, the people doing it maintain their anonymity for as long as possible.

Abuse of anonymity isn’t confined to the dark corners of basements and chat rooms, it makes headlines from time to time. As discussed, doxxing can lead to threats and stalking in the real world. Often victims will move, change phone numbers, and assume new identities to escape abuse, but some individuals are not so lucky. In 2016, allegations were made against the owner of a pizza restaurant in D.C., saying he was involved in a human trafficking conspiracy with John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager. It seems as though it was an ill-conceived attempt to discredit the democratic campaign, but instead resulted in an armed man storming the restaurant and firing three shots from an assault rifle into the ceiling, floor and wall. No one was hurt, but the evolution from an online whisper to actual violence is alarming. Another way that online disagreements can be brought into the real world is through action called “swatting”. To “swat” someone is to call the police, giving the address of your target, representing yourself as a concerned neighbor, and alleging that someone has been shot next door. Online tools enable emergency calls to be made without location tracking, which keep authorities from being aware of the hoax or tracking the person making the fraudulent call. The intended outcome is that police will storm your target’s home, and at worst, detain them for some time. In a 2017 case, an incorrect address was provided by a hoaxer and local police showed up to an innocent man’s house, killing him in the confusion before the end of the ordeal.

Bird sums up the unfortunate capacity for the internet:

The anonymity of the internet has created an environment where the absolute worst aspects of our human nature manifest themselves; stalking, pedophilia, bullying to the point of driving someone to suicide, revenge postings of nude photographs of former girlfriends, boyfriends and spouses (par 11).

There are roughly 242 million Americans who use the Internet to some degree on a daily basis. When that many people come together in any capacity, it is only through the creation and enforcement of laws that can create order from chaos. The digital realm of the Internet is a lawless frontier that is as dangerous and exciting as the “old west” in American lore. What was once only a glorified telegraph, the Internet has now become a place we go to for entertainment, business, politics, and community. Treating this digital space as an extension of the spaces we already occupy is the only way forward; eliminate anonymity, create law to govern interaction, and enforce those laws.

Works Cited

Bird, Richard. “Online Anonymity Increases Incivility.” Is Society Becoming Less Civil?, edited by Louise I. Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2014. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010921208/OVIC?u=chic13716&sid=OVIC&xid=9c9767a2. Accessed 18 Feb. 2019. Originally published as “Anonymity—Familiarity’s Ugly Cousin and the Bane of Civility,” collapseofcivility.com, 7 Oct. 2009.

boyd, danah. “Online Anonymity Protects Marginalized Groups.” Netiquette and Online Ethics, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010868211/OVIC?u=chic13716&sid=OVIC&xid=4e861674. Accessed 18 Feb. 2019. Originally published as “‘Real Names’ Policies Are an Abuse of Power,” http://www.zephoria.org, 4 Aug. 2011.

Feldman Barrett, L. (2017). When Is Speech Violence?. Nytimes.com. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html. Accessed 18 Feb. 2019.